Previous news story    Next news story

Just posted: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens review

By dpreview staff on Mar 6, 2013 at 19:18 GMT

Just posted: Our review of Canon's top-end standard zoom, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. Launched a year ago to replace its 10-year old predecessor, it's designed as a workhorse for professional photographers, and features a completely new optical design and improved, weathersealed build. In the latest of our lens reviews produced in collaboration with DxOMark, we take a look both lab and real-world performance. As usual, you can also compare it to a wide range of similar lenses using our unique lens data widget. Click through below to see what we thought.

Comments

Total comments: 161
12
Makskr
By Makskr (9 months ago)

Hi All,
Somebody can say me please, if the new 24-70 II much better then oldest 24-70?

Thanks.
Max

0 upvotes
Alejandro del Pielago
By Alejandro del Pielago (Mar 17, 2013)

Impressive, but IS is so desirable...

0 upvotes
DFPanno
By DFPanno (Mar 11, 2013)

Just sent my copy back.

Clearly sharper than my 24-105 at 70 but no better at 24.

Better contrast but not a night/day difference.

I missed the IS for sure.

If an IS version appears I will take a second look.

2 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Mar 10, 2013)

I'd be interested to see it compared with the Nikon equivalent.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 11, 2013)

I'm sure Nikon will come out with a better one in 5 years, for 8K video and 16k still maybe.

0 upvotes
benoa
By benoa (Mar 10, 2013)

As much as I enjoy reading the review, the samples gallery is IMHO not diverse enough, so I decided to share my own :
http://blog.benoa.net/2012/12/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii.html
Enjoy !

2 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Mar 10, 2013)

Yes...the DPR image samples are beyond lame. They show us VERY LITTLE about the capabilities of a $2300 lens that is raved about in their review??? DUH. You did a MUCH better job showing us what the lens is capable of producing...(especially the cheesecake at the car show :-)),...just lose the Mickey Wizard...and you could look like a pro.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
1 upvote
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Mar 9, 2013)

Those comparing Nikon and Zuiko lenses here seem to have a problem with this lens. Their actual problem is they've lost the plot.

If you have a Nikon lens that's better, and a Nikon body, you don't need this so it doesn't matter how it compares. Likewise for the Zuiko fans.

Conversely, if you don't have a body from another brand it doesn't matter how good that Zuiko or Nikon lens is; you won't be using it.

If you love your oh so special primes why are you considering a zoom? Don't buy it, maybe you'll keep retail prices lower. Go talk about your amazing talent and gear on some comment section for a prime, with the other armchair prize winners.

Is it loneliness or trolling then?

Blessed are the poor in spirit...

1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Mar 8, 2013)

Stunning work Canon ! At last (and about time) I as a Canon owner can get really excited. Now PLEASE bring out a cheapish decent full frame DSLR designed for photographers rather than Facebookers !

0 upvotes
Area256
By Area256 (Mar 10, 2013)

Don't be too quick to write off the 6D's WiFi and GPS as a "facebooker" feature. The WiFi tethered capture for studio work is awesome. As is the ability to do self-portraits, or shoot from unusual locations. The GPS is mostly a travel feature, but I could see some photojournalists making good use of it. The AF system is a little too basic for some, but for low light events it does the job very well.

2 upvotes
rbadiola
By rbadiola (Mar 11, 2013)

I don't see anything wrong with the 6D either. The wifi feature is awesome for studio work as you can see the previews on your desktop or laptop wirelessly. I don't really understand why some people consider it as "facebook" camera. Obviously they haven't used it yet.

2 upvotes
DonnyHiFi
By DonnyHiFi (Mar 13, 2013)

I'm liking the Wifi feature, I can forward any pictures from an event I'm shooting straight to the client's phone/tablet, IMO that is a pretty cool feature. The only thing I don't like about the 6D is that the autofocus points not spread out to properly cover the rule of thirds without having to focus and recompose.

0 upvotes
hotdog321
By hotdog321 (Mar 8, 2013)

I just shot my first editorial business portrait with this lens. Initial impressions agree completely with the DPreview tests, with two standout surprises:

1. Everyone says how sharp the 24-70 f/2.8 II lens is--they are right. At f/4.5 it was easily as sharp as my wonderful 70-200!

2. Flare control was just awesome! I was shooting into a bank of fluorescent lights on the wall, and the flare was non-existent. My 70-200 had trouble with the same lights.

This is a real pro workhorse of a lens and foresee at least a decade of hard use.

Just so I don't sound like a total fanboy, a few minor quibbles: I wish it had IS; the price is murder; I wish it had a larger lens hood to add protection to that massive front element; finally, I wish it was an internal zoom unit like the 16-35 and 70-200.

0 upvotes
Jahled
By Jahled (Mar 8, 2013)

Totally with you on IS and internal zoom, I suspect they are things we'll see in it's next incarnation

0 upvotes
Five Piece
By Five Piece (Mar 8, 2013)

Every design is a compromise in some way. This lens is optimzed for sharpness, light weight and smaller size. I use it differently than my IS lenses, usually using a tripod, or doing it old-school, making sure the shutter speed is high enough for hand-held. 5DM3 higher ISO performance is just the ticket for that. Otherwise, just killer sharp from f/2.8 onwards...

0 upvotes
michonn
By michonn (Mar 8, 2013)

Oh people some of you who never had this lens yours hands will always say that this lens is not worth the price but I know that others who own this lens are happy with the results. I own this lens and I'm very happy with the image quality I get out of that glass , its 3 primes in one glass - I would recommend this workhorse to everyone who shoot canon... simple

Comment edited 14 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 8, 2013)

Unless you have been using poor quality primes it is not optically as good with edges that soft still at f8. If your subject is in the centre of the frame fair enough but if it goes across the whole frame then this lens is poor. A lot of people are already questioning if it is even as good as the 5 year old Nikon equivalent. It's certainly not as good at f8 as an Zuiko 12-60mm, Zuiko 14-54mm or Zuiko 14-35 wide open and compared to a 14-35 f2 that is a 4 stop difference. Canon really need to up their game and put effort into the lens design for the amount of money they are charging. It won't take Nikon long to bring out a new lens and you can guarantee it will offer better value for money.

0 upvotes
Five Piece
By Five Piece (Mar 8, 2013)

Whatever, Mr. Stu 5. As an owver of this lens I could not be more pleased with the performance. I can also attest to its weather resitance, it took a really good splash in the Norwegian Sea, body is DOA but the lens still works fine. Maybe if you had some photographs in your gallery perhaps we could see if you have any idea what you are talking about, but you don't. Sigh... all these armchair experts here!

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 8, 2013)

Five Piece I choose not to put any photos in my gallery as that would not be fair on my clients or professional. The same goes for web links. So yes I am a professional photographer who also studied lens design. Worked in photographic retail management in the past and directly for two camera manufactures as well. Also worked for a few photographic distribution companies. I own/use camera formats from 10x8 downwards. So maybe not an armchair expert...

0 upvotes
Five Piece
By Five Piece (Mar 9, 2013)

Fair enough. The best tool for a particular job is not necessarily suitable for all situations. IF you are shooting a specific detailed across the frame subject and IF you will print poster sized+ for a paying client then yes, the very best prime will perhaps produce an ever so slightly better result.

However, as someone who is shooting for only me, where I often travel extensively, shooting whatever I come upon, the compositional choices available with the zoom far outweigh any barely perceptible difference in corner sharpness under microscopic examination that might be delivered by a possibly even pricier prime lens. Just sayin' the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II suites my purposes perfectly well.

Going to 4/3 format is likely not going go deliver superior results compared to FF in many scenarios, especially low-light. Not that these are not great cameras for many photographers, would like to acquire one myself at some point. The Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 Zuiko looks sweet!

0 upvotes
Vignes
By Vignes (Mar 9, 2013)

Zuiko glasses are good, there is no denying about that but 4/3 or the m4/3 format can’t give you the same IQ as a FF or even an APS-C body. The best m4/3 at the moment is the OMD E-M5 but zuiko lens needs a conv to work with m4/3 body and AF via conv is slow.
Agree with Five Piece, Low light performance is where the major difference is. I have three generations of Oly m4/3 (e-pl1, e-p3 and em-5) - lens 12-50, 45, panasonic 14. I also have a K-5 (APC-S) and a 6D (FF).

0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Mar 10, 2013)

Stu 5...I own the zoom...and L and Zeiss primes...what you say is true...but this new zoom is a nice step up from previous Canon zooms...also it allows a photographer the "option" of capturing pro results without carrying the following:
24mm L prime
28mm prime
35mm A prime ( Sigma)
50mm L prime
70mm? (85mm L Prime)
Also at the cost of about $7-8000
...and possibly paying an assistant to carry all of the above....
...so the new zoom does have a niche...that offers VERY acceptable results for many shooting situations.
Yes, I think Canon could have made the lens even better for that price!

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
five5pho
By five5pho (Mar 8, 2013)

great lens for sure. But no IS.
i will stick with the tamron

0 upvotes
abi170845
By abi170845 (Mar 8, 2013)

I will delay buying the 6D and will get this lens instead.

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Mar 8, 2013)

The whole point of Canon zooms was the great bokeh.

R.I.P. Canon.

No bokeh no buy.

1 upvote
Earthlight
By Earthlight (Mar 7, 2013)

It is a world class lens.

Now they only need a sensor to match. :)

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 7, 2013)

Not with edges that soft it isn't.

0 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Mar 8, 2013)

One would imagine that Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm is any better... in fact the Canon edges ahead in centre & corner sharpness...

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 8, 2013)

fair enough Nikon users have been using the best 24-70/2.8 for 5 years and it's Canon users' turn now.

0 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Mar 7, 2013)

I would go for weather sealing any day. The one drawback with this lens is that the prior version works just fine. If/when that fails, we'll see. Not much Canon can do about that.

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 7, 2013)

the new f/4LIS one looks not good at all compared with this one at open. is the f/4 one a bad copy? also I think the Nikon 24-70/2.8G should be better than the test here, especially at 70mm.

0 upvotes
miejoe
By miejoe (Mar 7, 2013)

I think the 24-70 f/4 IS test is a representative sample. It more or less matches Roger Cicala's results at LensRentals, and he tested 22 copies:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

As for the Nikon, are you sure you're not looking at the D300 (crop) results in the widget? As tested on the D3X, it's also in the range I would expect.

0 upvotes
Tonio Loewald
By Tonio Loewald (Mar 7, 2013)

So it appears to be slightly sharper and has lower CA than Nikon's older 24-70. More interestingly the new Canon 24-70 f4 IS is almost as sharp, better in other respects, and has stabilization. And of course it's much cheaper..

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 7, 2013)

it's half-generation better than Nikon as it should.

0 upvotes
Jahled
By Jahled (Mar 7, 2013)

I replaced the old version with this and recently finally got round to selling my 24L II, 35L, and 50L; it simply seemed pointless owning them. A very nice lens.

2 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Mar 7, 2013)

Only pointless if you don't like shooting at fast apertures ..

1 upvote
Jahled
By Jahled (Mar 7, 2013)

True, and have loved shooting wide open; and i've hung onto my 85L, but my the weight of my camera bag was getting a bit mental for social events and i've wanted to lighten up for a while. I know i'm not obliged to have everything with me at all times, but my head feels less cluttered now. I should imagine i'll regret letting go of the 50 before to long, but there you go.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 8, 2013)

50L should go (the only point may be to amaze the customer), 35L and 24L2 I'm not sure (not pointless but not much, either). looking forward to seeing 35L2.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Kinematic Digit
By Kinematic Digit (Mar 7, 2013)

Andy, on page two of your review you mentioned that there is no weather sealing of the Mark I version. That is incorrect. It was previously listed as one of Canon's L series lens with moisture and dust sealing.

It does have the tell-tale O ring seal on the mount. I compared both of them at one point and one of the things I also thought was changed but corrected myself later. I do believe it may have been upgraded on the Mark II, but they both are weather sealed.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Mar 7, 2013)

After all this is a fast zoom lens with inevitable compromises. But what it's capable of producing comfortably outweighs any complaints. There is no such a thing as perfect zoom design or it would be extremely expensive to produce, at least this day and age. What you get with this zoom lens is a collection of weather sealed f2.8 primes with performances close to good primes. I know it is expensive but I'm not a pro photographer and not in the position to judge it's price/function/value combination. To have a zoom lens of this quality can be priceless at times.

3 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 7, 2013)

It's not as good as a prime though. The edges are noticeable soft even down to f8 and depending what you are photographing it will notice even at quite small image size. For a lot of my clients this would be an issue and for a lens of this type and price it's not good enough.

0 upvotes
miejoe
By miejoe (Mar 7, 2013)

I'm surprised dpreview didn't mention the transmission improvement at all.

Normally transmission is insignificant to all but filmmakers, but according to dpreview's data, Canon managed a 1/2 stop improvement over version I at wideangle and a 1/3 stop improvement at telephoto.

If their numbers are correct, this would directly translate to a 1/2 stop better low-light or fast-action performance, which to me seems pretty relevant to photographers.

3 upvotes
Butoa
By Butoa (Mar 7, 2013)

How is it possible that Sony 24-70 has worse corners on A350 than on A900? That is not logical.

0 upvotes
jonny1976
By jonny1976 (Mar 7, 2013)

if you look at photozone review the tamron in practice has similar resolution. worst ain flare, better in bokeh, similar ca. vc and 1400 less dollar.

0 upvotes
Then4
By Then4 (Mar 7, 2013)

Sad that the quality of Tamron lenses not even close to Canon L lenses.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

0 upvotes
Tharizdun
By Tharizdun (Mar 7, 2013)

Canon is losing it. They've made it better by making the diameter bigger. That's what Sigma does!

0 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Mar 7, 2013)

Sigma is also very capable in lens design. way better than Sony (fake) Zeiss at least. but at least Canon managed to reduce the overall size and weight (by 15%) regardless of the larger front element. the only issue may be a stepdown filter adapter to 77mm.

0 upvotes
thomas2279f
By thomas2279f (Mar 7, 2013)

It's a must have lens on Canon side and slightly good news is that price is coming down a bit on line - although the UK pricing off this is abeit high in the first place along with Nikon's over top pricing for the 80-400 AFS VR (should have been £2k max).

0 upvotes
LeonXTR
By LeonXTR (Mar 7, 2013)

Beautiful lens but Canon's €2K pricing policy (24-70 II,70-200IS II, 14mmII, TS-E17mm II etc..) puts many of the newest models out of non-professional reach.

0 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Mar 7, 2013)

There is no TSE-17mm mk11

0 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Mar 7, 2013)

but it's supposed to be a professional lens ... wouldn't pricing and making it as good as it gets for professionals be the primary consideration? o.O

2 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (Mar 7, 2013)

This is definitely a top pro workhorse lens. I use the Tamron 24-70/2.8 with my 5D3, because I am no pro and I prefer mostly primes. The Tamron is really nice and I love its great IS, which allows such free hand shots:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2148378/tamron-24-70-vc-test

But the Tamron's AF is no match for any good Canon lens (I have and love e.g. the EF 70-200/2.8 II). Wide open I get a lot of OOF results, AF MA didn't help much. To make it worse, I discovered that I need to activate MA for close distance and switch it better off when I shoot more far away objects. So, if you really want to make the best of the 5D3's or 1D-X's AF system with such a standard zoom I fear you need to go for Canon's new zoom. Just think about what you'd have to pay for a decent Leica lens, this helps to relax a bit... ;-)

1 upvote
Infared
By Infared (Mar 7, 2013)

After reading this article:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
I would never consider a Tamron lens for any thing photographic.

0 upvotes
AlbertSiegel
By AlbertSiegel (Mar 7, 2013)

@Infared: Would you have the same feeling for a different brand if they had a well-known issue with the mirror falling off from one of their best cameras?

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Mar 7, 2013)

If a company would make such a schlock decision in the "engineering" of the lens and thento put this $1000+ product on retailers shelves for sale...um...it tells me a LOT about the basic mentality of that company. Finito!
...would make one wonder where else they are cutting corners.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
dave_bass5
By dave_bass5 (Mar 7, 2013)

That lens rental article is very old. How many threads have there been about this fault? Hardly any IMO, certainly not recently.
Saying that, ive had two copies of the Tamron that had faulty VC systems, the second copy also caused camera lock up so i agree, poor QC on Tamron's part.
Having now got the Canon MKII i can only thank Tamron for pointing me in the right direction lol.

0 upvotes
Grand Wazoo
By Grand Wazoo (Mar 7, 2013)

Dave, your Canon lens is a proper pukka lens I give you that, and it should be for that money, but either I am lucky or God knows why, my Tamron 24-70 is faultless and works very accurately.

0 upvotes
qianp2k
By qianp2k (Mar 7, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcsnsJUKhAg

Watch above video that pretty explains everything. 24-70L II is not perfect by missing 'IS'. Hope next year Canon will announce 'IS' rumored version. I will sell my 24-70L II can get the 'IS' version. Otherwise I love my copy.

0 upvotes
blemont denis
By blemont denis (Mar 7, 2013)

For the price Canon 24x70 you can get a Olympus omD his grip with pana 20mm and 45mm Olympus!
Canon really exaggerating too much on the price of new optics, it discourages noprofessional ...

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Mar 7, 2013)

For a price of full frame lens you can get a camera with a tiny sensor?
I'm underwhelmed.

7 upvotes
digifan
By digifan (Mar 7, 2013)

You are comparing apples and pears, but yeah, there's a point.
@blemont denis, a 1/2,3 P&S sensor is tiny, the 35mm is only 4 times larger, so tiny is an exxaggeration! The 35mmFF is tiny compared to FULL FORMAT!
It's all in they eyes of the beholder.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Mar 7, 2013)

Lol @ Plastek

0 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

Holy sh!!!! Did you know you could buy like 200 webcams for the price of Canon's 24-70II? Talk about value for money!!! :O

4 upvotes
Marek07
By Marek07 (Mar 7, 2013)

From a professional working environment, I have had this lens for over 5 months now, and is in constant use, I shoot Fashion and Portraiture and have to say it has become the workhorse in my kit even leaving my 50mm 1.2 to gather dust it's that good, of course there is always going to be distortion and vignetting with any zoom but the new 24-70 is the sharpest, fastest zoom I have used and has great bokeh.

I use it with the new 5d mk3 which now has lens correction, and shoot studio, location, front lit, backlit...

Initially I went into a camera store with a few flash cards and tried a variety of 24-70 lenses including the nikon d800e with it's 24-70 and the new canon easily came top.

3 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Mar 7, 2013)

You prefer a zoom for professional fashion & portraiture? Intresting...

0 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Mar 7, 2013)

@sanhain .. for fashion and portrait edge performance is less critical.. the new 24-70 is very good in the center and has great contrast and colour..

1 upvote
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Mar 7, 2013)

@ Marek .
your last para,, makes me wonder if you are familier with nikon system at all, i find the d800E with nik 24-70 resolves a bit better than any zooms in that FL (below MF) from any other brands.it outresolves the new canon too, not because of the lens but because of the sensor.it´s always a sum of the combination :-).
probably you left the nikon in it´s default settings which applies none to very low sharpening levels, and it´s a known fact that canon default settings applies a lot more incam sharpening.

by the way here is a good read, there is a direct comparisson somewhere. and the numbers are easy to grasp than vague claims :-).
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

@ shamhain . what´s wrong with using a zoom for fashion and portraiture? specially when it is as good as any prime lens out there.

2 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Mar 7, 2013)

@ Ken Johnes...You are wasting you time replying people like "shamhain" they have nothing to do with photography, or a function of a particular lens, are only interested in numbers, newest gear, and think in terms of few cliche they've picked up in gear reviews.

5 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Mar 7, 2013)

i think you are absolutely right, i´ll keep that in mind.thanks

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Mar 7, 2013)

@ Ken Johnes: While this new Canon zoom is the best midrange zoom ever, best primes still beat it handsomely. But of course the absolute best is not always needed, convenience of a zoom might result in better pictures overall, depending on the situation.

Often in fashion shoots the backgrounds are featureless color backdrops, corner sharpness does not matter at all. Same in portraiture.

Also, mathematically speaking, the end result is the product of the combination, not sum... =:-)

0 upvotes
Studor13
By Studor13 (Mar 7, 2013)

A friend of mine and I both have a D800 and 24-70 lens.

When we compared our lenses (on a tripod with MLU) we found that her's slightly back focused differently to mine. After adjusting using the AF Fine Tune, her sample still had a slight problem on one side.

The lens was re-calibrated by Nikon and now both our system are equal.

And in case you don't know the D800 is a very demanding camera but it can give incredible results. Of course, you actually need to know what you are doing.

Good luck comparing lenses in a store with a few flash cards, and presumably, hand held shots.

0 upvotes
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Mar 7, 2013)

As most professionals shooting to pay their mortgage already know, for most fashion, glamour, and portrait work, whether you shooting with a prime or premium zoom hardly matters.

While there are distinct advantages to both (Zooms come into their own during action portraiture when zooming with your sneakers isn't practical & primes come into their own WHEN that extra stop of light, light-for-focusing, or shutter speed makes a big difference which isn't often shooting general fashion, etc.)

It's only the bottom line that counts, and the bottom line is that most clients and professional photographers can't tell what you shot with after post processing is all said and done.

Many zooms best primes back in the mid 2000s, today in 2013 the prime vs. zoom fodder is just infantile. Generally, the days of there being a glaring difference to the point of a zoom being a detriment are long gone.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
nofumble
By nofumble (Mar 7, 2013)

From lenstip.com

Pros:
solid casing,
excellent image quality in the frame centre,
very good image quality on the edge of the APS-C sensor,
negligent longitudinal chromatic aberration,
great coma correction,
slight astigmatism,
low vignetting on APS-C,
silent, quick and accurate autofocus.

Cons:
lateral chromatic aberration corrected in a worse way than that of the rivals,
huge vignetting on full frame,
weak performance against bright light,
exorbitant price

2 upvotes
Will Kaiser
By Will Kaiser (Mar 7, 2013)

"negligent longitudinal chromatic aberration"

That's negligible; almost opposite meaning

1 upvote
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Mar 7, 2013)

I thought the comparison widget was broken or something. Then I realised how sharp this lens is...

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Mar 7, 2013)

"near flawless" = 87%? I don't get it.

1 upvote
Mafoo
By Mafoo (Mar 7, 2013)

Price. If it was flawless, but cost 30K, should it get 100%?

5 upvotes
snow14
By snow14 (Mar 7, 2013)

Can't help wondering if this lens was made by Leica how much will they charge for it?

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 7, 2013)

Would not have come out of the design room in the first place until they improved the quality.

2 upvotes
snow14
By snow14 (Mar 7, 2013)

it is easier to design a lens without AF you know.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Mar 7, 2013)

Michelle Obama's New Official Portrait taken with 5D MKIII w/EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM at 63mm ,F4, 50iso, 1/80th sec :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8532/8491445521_3fd1722dd7_o.jpg

0 upvotes
JackM
By JackM (Mar 7, 2013)

not her best look.

5 upvotes
Mafoo
By Mafoo (Mar 7, 2013)

You would think someone who is experienced enough to be doing presidential family portraits, would not have missed focus. Her eyes are a little soft.

0 upvotes
monokultur
By monokultur (Mar 7, 2013)

Its typical for a more techie site like preview that all one sees is the not so perfect sharpness. This picture is by ALL means a bad picture. BAD lightning, bad posing, BAD focal length. Look at her hands. What the hell should these big shovels aesthetically represent in this picture?

Its a real pitty that an attractive woman like Michelle Obama has been photographed in such an unflattering way.

1 upvote
JackM
By JackM (Mar 7, 2013)

Her eyes are in acceptable focus, but the bigger problem is the pose draws attention to the fact that her eyes are not the same size.

0 upvotes
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Mar 7, 2013)

I don't think most Americans give a care about something as nit pik as the size of Mrs. Obama's eyes. Most reasonable people aren't so tunnel visioned.

That's one problem with professional photography today- gotten so nit-pik that people can't see the big picture any longer... akin to an English teacher hell bent on her students being able to diagram a sentence correctly when most inhabitants of the planet engaged in business (to include professional publishing) couldn't care less about such.

Her eyes aren't perfect? As if most people give a hoot. Meanwhile that photographer (and many more like him generating non-perfect eyes in their portraits) are getting paid, and I gather the bulk of those who are super critical would starve if they had to survive on their own photography. ;)

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Absolutic
By Absolutic (Mar 6, 2013)

Love my 24-70L II. Andy, you should have invented a new 'Diamond" award, beyond the regular Gold award for that lens.

2 upvotes
Richard Murdey
By Richard Murdey (Mar 7, 2013)

Not one diamond, five diamonds. The five diamond award...

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Mar 7, 2013)

Yup, all diamonds are flawed ;-)

1 upvote
Roland Schulz
By Roland Schulz (Mar 6, 2013)

Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but why is this all blue in the review?? This lens is soft like a pillow, see in the river shoots at f8! Somewhat sharp in the center but completly butter off center.
By the way I'm a Nikon user, not that happy with the extreme corners of the 24-70 2.8G, but what I see here is nothing I would accept.

BTW2: The review from IR is not that all positive, nor the diagram is.

8 upvotes
ivan1973
By ivan1973 (Mar 6, 2013)

Maybe your photography skills ain't good enough?

10 upvotes
Edmond Leung
By Edmond Leung (Mar 7, 2013)

Maybe his eyes have problem too!
He had better to see a doctor.

5 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 7, 2013)

Roland your correct the lens is soft on the edges. Certainly from these samples it is not worth the money. Not sure what DPR were doing but I would have asked for another sample of the lens to be sent through just to make sure it was not a one off.

7 upvotes
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 7, 2013)

Edmund it is quite easy to see this lens is soft on the edges. You might put up with it but some of us wouldn't especially not for the asking price. If I did not know what these were shot on I would guess it was a much cheaper lens.

7 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (Mar 7, 2013)

How dare you point out the Emperor is naked ? :-)
It is a compromising zoom lens after all.
Thank you for honestly verifying the report yourself
and helping us make a true assessment.

Can you recommend using 2 cameras with
fast prime lenses for weddings ?

Maybe a large format for the general views
and the OMD-EM5 for good skin tones
and excellent IS in the close-up portraits ?

0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Mar 7, 2013)

You are wrong. As a Nikon user how familiar are you with the nature of Canon's OOC jpegs? There is going to be a substantial difference had the pictures been processed with ACR. But to be honest DPReview is incredibly vague in stating - "Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. " Given that you are viewing distant objects through sometimes hazy sky, I think the results look good enough...yes I've seen better with my 50mm stopped down in RAW, but I'd probably be dissapointed if I had to pixel peep OOC jpegs too of no particular settings. You guys need to cite exactly what filenames and soft areas you are referring to because as of now you seem to be comparing test chart sharpness vs actual real-world 3 dimensional scenes.

0 upvotes
Roland Schulz
By Roland Schulz (Mar 7, 2013)

The softness off center can easily be seen in several shoots, even @f8. For sure most lenses get worse towards the corners, so here. I don´t find anything special since this design seems still inferior to the Nikon 24-70 2.8G that is about 5 years old now (but also not perfect). Compare reviews from Imaging Resource, photozone.de and others for that.

I find these "diamonds" are overhyped, nothing so special with this lens for me.

3 upvotes
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Mar 7, 2013)

@ Timbukto,
i am a nikon user now but have been using canon till last summer and i must say the OOC jpegs looks way better from canon because of the higher default sharpening and contrast levels , and you ar not gaining much in that respect if you shoot raw .
there is no substancial difference ,specially if you are using ACR :-).

@ Roland , can you please explain why you think the design is inferior to the nikon´s ?, one time i tried the canon , the lens was more responsive the the nikon ( faster and smoother and had similar bokeh too)

you are right .these samples dont do much good for a lens like this.

1 upvote
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

I don't really care what you jokers who don't own this lens say. I have one. I shoot with it. It is f*ing amazing :D

0 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Mar 7, 2013)

from a sharpness, CA, and distortion aspect - every review has it better than the nikkor .. which is understandable - it's a 5 year old lens now.

interesting how nikon users have to feel afraid of competitor's lenses.

the Nikkor is a excellent lens, but i have yet to see a review that has it better when compared within a reasonable standpoint of side by side better than the 24-70II.

the published MTF's show the 24-70G falls off alot at 70mm - alot more so than the 24-70II - where you see the published mtf's to be far more consistent for the II versus the G throughout the range, which outside of QA issues - seems to be the case with the 24-70II.

this is really reflected in just about any side by side comparisons.

0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Mar 7, 2013)

Yes there is not a big difference between jpg and raw at the *image* level in these conditions if we are not pixel peeping...but you guys *are* pixel peeping. Not to mention you are pixel peeing pictures where the corners are long distance shots of *water* which is somewhat absurd since I can't remember when I've seen tack sharp water from a distance. There is a reason why MTF charts are not just pictures of water.

0 upvotes
Dan4321
By Dan4321 (Mar 6, 2013)

No people?

Please, could you post some photos of actual people taken with this lens in the samples?

Statues don't count, I want to see how the lens handles delicate skin tones, eyes, lashes, etc. Close-up portraits, full-body shots, groups shots, environmental, studio, etc. It's important for a lot of us but it seems like a lot of the time, review samples posted by you guys have only a few people shots -- or none at all. Please don't neglect people photographers.

5 upvotes
Clint Dunn
By Clint Dunn (Mar 6, 2013)

Seriously....what do you expect from people who are posting this info for free (and advertising). It's Canon's BEST standard zoom....if you need it than buy it. If you don't like it then return it.

0 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

TBH, if you are concerned about skin tones, go buy a fuji :D

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 6, 2013)

They may not make the slickest camera bodies but doggonit, they sure know how to make sharp lenses (except the 16-35/17-40 but then, nobody's perfect).

0 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Mar 6, 2013)

If only canon would use sony sensor's then they would be awesome.. but the 1DX could do with losing some weight ..it's a beast..

2 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 6, 2013)

just sit out the current canon sensors.

next year will see a new line of canon sensors.

1 upvote
The Photo Ninja
By The Photo Ninja (Mar 7, 2013)

No complaints with the 5d3 sensor.

Comment edited 20 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Mar 7, 2013)

The bodies are slick, most can actually be handled by human hands unlike other manufacturers', Canon is top-notch with their high-end AF, and where there's weather sealing it's sealed no problem... but yes their sensors...

0 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Mar 6, 2013)

I bet canon is preparing for a high res body,this lens in combination with the 70-200mk2 would work like a charm on a 40MP body,I used the 24-70mk2 for about 2 weeks on a 1DX,lighter and faster AF than mk1 with few CA's and nice that the street price is coming down now,I prefer the new filter size too.IS is rumoured to be on the way which will appeal to wedding and journalist snappers..

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 7, 2013)

A lot of wedding shooters are actually starting to switch brands now because of the issues they have with the 5D MKIII so I.S won't appeal to many people. Looking at these samples the lens is not good enough for a high res body. Far to soft on the edges even at f8. Yes it is an improvement on the old MKI lens but that was a very poor over priced lens. This lens does not justify the price unless you are so committed to the Canon brand that switching to another system is not affordable. For many that would like to switch that is a real issue.

1 upvote
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Mar 7, 2013)

what issues are those photogs having with the MKIII ? care to explain ? am just curious.

1 upvote
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

They all quit photography as a profession because there are endless trolls on DPR.

0 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Mar 7, 2013)

lol stu.. got a serious hate on in this comment section don't you?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 6, 2013)

Dang, I've never seen so much blue in a lens test. Well done, Canon.

5 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Mar 6, 2013)

at least when canons MP monster camera arrives in 2014 canon user will have the optics to make real use of it.

1 upvote
Stu 5
By Stu 5 (Mar 7, 2013)

lol. No they won't. Not with this lens.

1 upvote
Ken Johnes
By Ken Johnes (Mar 7, 2013)

well, as the canon guy recently told ( that article is somewhere on DPR) they dont want to go with hi res sensors yet, for the reason they still dont think they have the lens to resolve it.
when you up the rez from 20mp to 40mp , the blues might turn green pretty quickly ;-)

1 upvote
rrccad
By rrccad (Mar 7, 2013)

lens rentals showed it to easily outresolve canon's current sensors, it should no problems with a higher MP camera.

what i love most about this lens is a complete lack of PF.

0 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (Mar 6, 2013)

Why is it more sharper on full frame than APS-C? Shouldn't it be the other way around since crop uses just the sweet center portion?

3 upvotes
vodanh1982
By vodanh1982 (Mar 6, 2013)

I think lens resolution has reached the maximum (LP/ PH). The FF has more height so it has more resolution.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Mar 6, 2013)

The density of the FF sensor is lower, so each pixel corresponds to a larger area of the lens elements. Essentially a lower density sensor demands less detail from the glass to achieve the same "sharpness".

5 upvotes
LKJ
By LKJ (Mar 7, 2013)

What you're seeing is the "sweet spot" myth exploding.

3 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

What sweet spot? My 24-70II is AMAZING left, right and center lol

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Mar 6, 2013)

Completely disagree about the close-up performance. I was using this lens for several hours in the Botanic gardens shooting at f/2.8 to f/5.6 and even wide open the shots were nice and crisp. I was only stopping down for extra DoF. This lens is simply superb, but I am disappointed the max magnification went from 0.29x on the old model to 0.21x on this mk II.

1 upvote
ThomasSwitzerland
By ThomasSwitzerland (Mar 6, 2013)

I had the prior Canon 24-70 L and found it the best zoom in its range. Then I have got some Tamron lenses. They are not that good as the Canon, but come quite close from my field experience. It is really hard to decide.

But, if you see the huge price of the Canon – you get in doubt. May be if you want the best of the best, have plenty of funds, and know how to take pictures.

Otherwise, there are different choices.

5 upvotes
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Mar 6, 2013)

"The Tamron looks like a very worthy competitor, offering impressive image quality, image stabilisation and weathersealing all in one package, and we aim to assess it fully in the near future. But quite simply the Canon offers such exceptionally good optics that, if you're after the very best, there's simply no other choice."

No doubt the Canon is a great lens, but untill you have fully tested the Tamron (or refer to external comparisons), that last sentence is incorrect and sounds a bit like fanboyism...

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Mar 6, 2013)

Full lab test data for the Tamron is available in the lens widget.

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
9 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Mar 6, 2013)

quickly looking at the comparison, wide open from 24mm to 70mm .. the original 24-70, nikkor, sony/ziess, tamron, sigma .. all simply aren't as good.

hardly say it's fanboyism when you can compare yourself and see they are speaking pretty factual. from CA, sharpness - the II is best in case.

3 upvotes
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Mar 7, 2013)

My appologies, I did not see that the Tamron already features in the lens widget.

Still, what one calls "the very best" is up for debate. In terms of sharpness, the Canon indeed leads the pack for most of the zoom and aperture range. However, if I was into concert photography, "the best" in my opinion would rather be the image-stabilized Tamron, which more than makes up for the small loss in absolute sharpness (mostly at 24-35mm wide-open). Hence, I'm still of the opinion that the statement "if you're after the very best, there's simply no other choice" is incorrect. With the last sentence representing the conclusion of your "Final word", I'd much rather have seen it replaced by how you started that paragraph:

"The answer, as usual, isn't necessarily clear-cut, and depends on each individual photographers' needs and preferences."

1 upvote
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

I think the statement was pretty conclusive.

0 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Mar 7, 2013)

how exactly would image stabilization have that much effect on concert photography considering ISO is more important, and shutter speeds would for the most part be higher than 1/focal anyway to reduce subject motion blur.

you're nitpicking.

0 upvotes
Greg VdB
By Greg VdB (Mar 7, 2013)

@rrccad: naturally turning up the ISO is to some degree a substitute for mechanical image stabilisation, but this is a camera feature and so is rather beside the point of this lens review.
And let me nit-pick some more: using high iso means shorter exposure times, which can be undesired if the aim of the photographer is to display motion of a subject (human or otherwise) or background (whilst panning). I used the example of concert photography since that is a good example where you might want to mix a steady background with (partial) movement of band members to give a sense of 'being there' to the viewer. In this admittedly rather specific (but for some people very important) case, the Tamron would be "the best". That was all I was saying, and now I will rest my nit-picking case.

(PS: note my appologies and imagine that my 1st entry might not have been entirely nit-picking if the comparison would not have been available - if I could delete my first post I'd probably do so...)

1 upvote
rrccad
By rrccad (Mar 8, 2013)

again .. very nitpicking a very exclusive category of shutter dragging (which btw, they did prior to IS/VR)

usually lens sharpness, ca, bokeh, AF speed are far more general statements that can be made.

heck, it's a pretty bad macro too.

the review mentioned that the tammy had VR.

it also has sluggish AF, and some issues with canon bodies.

0 upvotes
buellom
By buellom (Mar 6, 2013)

Roger (from lensrentals) made extensiv AF tests and came up with the result that the AF of the 5DIII is more precise than the AF of other Canons (at least with the new lenses). It would be very interesting to check if the AF issues mentioned in the review are found with a 5DIII too.

0 upvotes
Ron Poelman
By Ron Poelman (Mar 6, 2013)

What's with the halos along the dolphin's back ?
Can't be default sharpening, Shirley ?

1 upvote
hotdog321
By hotdog321 (Mar 6, 2013)

Ironically, I ordered mine a couple of days ago. It should arrive today and I'm on pins and needles!

1 upvote
tgelston
By tgelston (Mar 6, 2013)

I love mine but wonder if the 24-70 f/4 had been out. . if that would have satisfied me. My partner that I shoot weddings with says no, we need that extra stop but in my tests the 24-70 f/4 is right there hanging with it - I have a little video review up of the three 24 lenses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzR_CjFs8g8

0 upvotes
Randell Tober
By Randell Tober (Mar 6, 2013)

Hi,
I owned an 24x70 2.8 along with the 70x200 2.8 in the past. Made the mistaken decision to sell them and replace with the- 70x200 F4. (financial issues) I haven't been happy since. Not even close to happy in low light- indoor sport situations etc... I should've known better. With that said, it will take some doing for me to get to this glass level again. Starting over. Sold the F4 and the Canon 30D... Probably going the 4/3 route now... Olympus? Feel free to give me opinions please... Can't even begin to think about spending $2K on a piece of glass any longer :o( Thanks

0 upvotes
DeFinitive
By DeFinitive (Mar 7, 2013)

OM-D E-M5 with 45 f1.8 and 75 f1.8, fantastic optics and IQ. Olympus bringing out f2.8 zoom/s in a few months (hopefully 12-60) and possibly new E-M7??

1 upvote
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

If you keep buying gear and selling gear, you'll just keep losing the money and the gear. Just buy something alright and shoot with it.

0 upvotes
Randell Tober
By Randell Tober (Mar 7, 2013)

Note: I have yet to lose any money selling glass :o) When one goes from making 80K a year to 30K a year one has to make choices :o)

0 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (Mar 6, 2013)

Apparently an IS version is expected for later this year.

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (Mar 6, 2013)

You could have said exactly the same thing any time for about the last five years...

12 upvotes
FreedomLover
By FreedomLover (Mar 6, 2013)

Sure, only then it would have been wrong :-)

0 upvotes
Dianoda
By Dianoda (Mar 6, 2013)

Thing is, rumors are rumors until Canon actually makes an announcement, and even then, that doesn't mean the lens would actually be available for purchase.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Mar 7, 2013)

I doubt Canon would be that dumb to immediately pss off 50% of their loyal followers.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Yes, almost a perfect lens. Also very heavy, that's why we need more FF or at least APS-C compacts...

0 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Mar 7, 2013)

Big heavy lens on small lightweight compact... right... talk about unbalanced and cumbersome to use. The reason for large DSLRs are to balance with the lenses. The lenses need go back to being small and lightweight for that, and in the process needs to deal with the angle of response of sensors, and while keeping AF and being sealed and have the same quality. Can happen, but when?

1 upvote
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Mar 7, 2013)

Lighter than the old one though...

1 upvote
Total comments: 161
12